-
Example- PPro losing markets to Final Cut & AVID
-
[R. Hewitt] “It’s frustrating when Adobe are so close to getting the product ‘just right’ in a professional sense when they don’t provide a genuine open channel of communication to those of us out here – feature request aside.”
Many of us here work with Adobe on development and rest assured, we note the issues and make sure they get to where they need to be…
TimK,
Kolb Syverson Communications,
Creative Cow Host,
2004-2005 NAB Post Production Conference
Premiere Pro Technical Chair,
Author, “The Easy Guide to Premiere Pro” http://www.focalpress.com
“Premiere Pro Fast Track DVD Series” http://www.classondemand.net -
[Tim Kolb] “Many of us here work with Adobe on development and rest assured, we note the issues and make sure they get to where they need to be…”
Maybe you should take a sldgehammer along the next time you go talking to them 🙂 Because either you’re not saying the right things or they’re just not listening.
The “niggling little things in the workflow” as you put above it are more like gaping wide holes for most professionals. But above and beyond that there’s the cavalier attitude to point releases during the 18 month development cycle and the insistence on releasing updates to the entire video suite at the same time. People who work in production environments need updates sooner and bug fixes soonest. And they also need real support – (maybe Adobe didn’t realize that NLE’s have to interface with hardware?)
All in all PPro’s a fine product that needs to be taken to the next level if Adobe ever wants to establish a serious presence in the professional marketplace. We’ll see whether they’re committed to do that with version 2. After 18+ months the gaping holes better be all filled and a new attitude evident of listening to professional users. Otherwise watch the exodus to FCP by PC houses when the first Intel Macs come rolling off the assembly lines. It’ll be a stampede.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[David Cherniack] “The “niggling little things in the workflow” as you put above it are more like gaping wide holes for most professionals. But above and beyond that there’s the cavalier attitude to point releases during the 18 month development cycle and the insistence on releasing updates to the entire video suite at the same time.”
The issues are “niggling” in the context of the engineering aspect of the software. I can’t see that a lot of them would be difficult to fix…but then I’m not an engineer.
Updating the suite all at once is sort of necessary as the cross-application functionality is developed. It’s hard to come out with the next Ppro hook in AE when the version of PPro that’s out doesn’t have the other end of it…suddenly you’re doing 10 “dot” releases of each piece of software, most of which are simply to add the backside of a connection to a feature in another application.
I’m not sure what demonstrates a “cavalier” attitude…
There is a way to go, no question. I do think that sometimes users see a certain outcome with these software companies and they assume some specific motivations. I don’t think that Adobe is cavalier necessarily, but they are coming from a different core group of users, so the existing priorities don’t evaporate to make way for the new ones…they just pile on.
TimK,
Kolb Syverson Communications,
Creative Cow Host,
2004-2005 NAB Post Production Conference
Premiere Pro Technical Chair,
Author, “The Easy Guide to Premiere Pro” http://www.focalpress.com
“Premiere Pro Fast Track DVD Series” http://www.classondemand.net -
[Tim Kolb] “The issues are “niggling” in the context of the engineering aspect of the software. I can’t see that a lot of them would be difficult to fix…but then I’m not an engineer.”
Weel, that’s not what was implied, nor is it really relevant to the discussion. If they’re not difficult to implement then there would be no reason for them not to have fixed them in 1.51, which was exactly a “cavalier” point update. Instead of plugging any of the functional holes in the software, all they chose to do was add HDV support, and fix a few unstated bugs. None of the MAJOR issues were addressed. That’s cavalier.
AFA as updating the entire suite I fail to see how fixing the stereo audio paradigm has anything to do with After Effects, Encore, or Audition. It could ‘easily’ have been implemented in 1.51, but wasn’t. So either they don’t get the need, or just don’t care enough to implement the solution in a way that’s helpful to their professional users.
[Tim Kolb] “I don’t think that Adobe is cavalier necessarily, but they are coming from a different core group of users, so the existing priorities don’t evaporate to make way for the new ones…they just pile on.”
I’ve always felt that they should have released two different levels of Premiere Pro, because one size does not fit all. A hobbyist has very different needs than a broadcast editor. I’ve put in an order for Axio, Tim, but not because I’m filled with confidence about Adobe’s committment to making this software truly professional. In fact I have my grave doubts based in their performance so far. As I’ve said 2.0 will likely tell the tale. If it doesn’t cut it, I’d hate to be the PPro product manager at the next NAB. The poor guy will be lucky to escape with any skin.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
For those of you who go right back to Adobe Premiere 4.0 (the first Windows based version) you will be very aware of the leaps and bounds the program has gone. Hell, I use to cut Australia’s Most wanted on it… but in those days it was Avid Avid Avid and a little bit of Media 100. Adobe was aiming at simple non-linear editing to compliment its other products; and of course the challenge was making it a DIY solution where it had to intergrate to 3rd party capure cards; that was their big problem… whereas Avid and Media 100 were complete systems. These complete systems had a major advantage in so much as non-technical people could just turn them on and use them and get the manufacturer to fix it when it failed; but that came at a cost… a very big cost.
I started playing with Premiere 4 and a Miro DC 1 because I was a techo and because I could.. I even started work on my own NLE program but gave it a miss having seen how well (and how cheap) Adobe’s solution was.
I still use Premiere today as my prefered BROADCAST EDITING SOLUTION and make major shows that get played around the world. I use it because I have grown up with it and am familiar with its functionality… and yes I have used all the others and keep on coming back to Premiere… but I still am a techo as well as an editor and I love to fiddle with the inner workings (I hate using anything that I don’t have an understanding of how it works).
I am seriously thinking that the next doco I edit I will have the editors credit as “Adobe Premiere Editor…” and look forward to collecting an award and saying “I would like to thank Adobe for making an affordable solution to a struggling editor”.
The saddest thing I find with Premiere’s poor acceptance into the broadcast market is that I have to avoid telling my prospective clients that I edit using Adobe Premiere. They can sit with me for 6 weeks straight and still refer to it as the ‘Avid’; and they leave none the wiser. I suppose another sad thing is the lack of good Premiere operators as compared to FCP and Avid… makes it hard for me when we get busy as I don’t like hiring freelancers that show inexperience with Premiere in front of my clients.
I would just like to finish up by saying ‘thank you’ to some of the “professional” card manufacturers who DO see Premiere in the broadcast market and DO spent a lot of time developing software and drivers for it; certainly well outside the ‘consumer’ level.
-
There’s some truth to what you say, but it’s also true you can cut a broadcastable film with a razor blade and a little bit of glue. That’s really not the point. PPro has some design shortcomings that prevent it from being adopted by the many if not most professional editors. That’s the point. Sentiments like “it works, I use it. I’m happy.” just encourage acceptance of some glaringly poor design choices and the snail’s pace of its evolution into a top of the line editor. It’s not that the potential isn’t there. There just seems to be a lack of will to realize it. We’ll see with version 2.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
I agree with David C. We aren’t saying that you can’t cut on PP.
In my particular case, I am looking for high productivity workgroup solutions as well as more “professional” high productivity tools.
The rationale for starting this thread was just pointing out the lost opportunity for both Adobe and all us users down in the trenches by not having the more developed workgroup and tool functinalities.
And as others have already posted here, much of bitching comes from the frustration of waiting at the bottom of “Mt Sinai for Moses to come back from communing with God”. **
Richard
** The role of God in today’s performance is being played by Adobe. 🙂 -
[David Cherniack] “PPro has some design shortcomings that prevent it from being adopted by the many if not most professional editors. That’s the point. Sentiments like “it works, I use it. I’m happy.” just encourage acceptance of some glaringly poor design choices and the snail’s pace of its evolution into a top of the line editor. It’s not that the potential isn’t there.”
So…what is your criteria for a “professional”? I’d like to achieve that status some day…
The pace of PPro’s evolution is actually fairly brisk, though the areas that you seem to be referring to do seem to get set aside…however, did you ever use Premiere 4x? How about 5x or 6? 6.5? PPro was a leap. A big one. Anyone who witnessed that process form the early stages can attest to the work Adobe had to put in to make that leap.
I agree with your remarks on the sentiments…but some of us neophyte and amateur editors who do use PPro get a little sick of the idea that no “professionals” use it.
Too many editors who criticize the application relegate it to “sub-professional” status-thereby relegating current users to the same. It’s not a great way to enlist the assistance of the existing PPro user community in your quest.
TimK,
Kolb Syverson Communications,
Creative Cow Host,
2004-2005 NAB Post Production Conference
Premiere Pro Technical Chair,
Author, “The Easy Guide to Premiere Pro” http://www.focalpress.com
“Premiere Pro Fast Track DVD Series” http://www.classondemand.net -
[Tim Kolb] “some of us neophyte and amateur editors who do use PPro get a little sick of the idea that no “professionals” use it.”
The comment I made was “PPro has some design shortcomings that prevent it from being adopted by the many if not most professional editors.” That’s a mighty long way from “no professionals use it.”
[Tim Kolb] “Too many editors who criticize the application relegate it to “sub-professional” status-thereby relegating current users to the same. It’s not a great way to enlist the assistance of the existing PPro user community in your quest.”
I did relegate it to any kind of sub-professional status. Why would I? I’ll be using PPro from now on with Axio. I find many things about it to be superb. I find many other things about it to be poorly implemented (for professional users AND amateur users) and I attribute the cause to not consulting with enough professional – or if you prefer users ‘experienced’ on multiple platforms doing complex projects – in the design spec phase. I base that conclusion mostly on the stereo tracks design which any editor in a professional working environment would have screamed about like a raving banshee.
But as for uniting the user base to get Adobe to change, I suspect that if they haven’t heard the shouting by now, they never will.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
“I base that conclusion mostly on the stereo tracks design which any editor in a professional working environment would have screamed about like a raving banshee. ”
I find this comment very interesting, as I have past comments regarding this ‘stereo track’… I love working with stereo tracks AND most if not all my doco’s are shot split track. It is no problem for me to dup/fill left/right etc and it also gives me the ability to quickly see where these are in the timeline… but we all have our own techniques and work arounds for the shortcomings of each software product we use… and I couldn’t believe some of the workarounds I had to find on a recent Avid job I help out on trying to do things the way I do on PPRO. And by the way, I am one of those editors in a ‘professional working environment’.
One of the points that may need to be discussed here on the topic of ‘tight Adobe integration’ is that Premiere may have had is functionality deliberately limited so as not to cross over into other Adobe products; and that being said, when they get all the ‘Cool Edit Pro’ stuff out of Adobe Audition and integrate it into its current family will they then strip much of Premiere’s audio features out?…. or maybe they have planned that far ahead already.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up